In recent years it has become evident that the hazards of smoking are not only the concern of those who smoke but also those who breathe in smoke. For this reason numerous laws, regulations and policies have been established which either limit the areas in which an individual can smoke or else ban smoking completely. This is course can be extremely troublesome for smokers who tend to rely on smoking as a diversion, or to relax. When these individuals are not allowed to smoke they tend to become tense and nervous and often have difficulty concentrating on the other things that they are doing. This is especially troublesome in the workplace where smokers may have been in the habit of smoking while working. The individuals now find themselves confined to nonsmoking areas which has a double negative effect. The first part of the negative effect is a difficulty in performing ones work when ones attention is being distracted by the need for a cigarette. Secondly, if they wish to smoke they must stop whatever they are working on and remove themselves to a designated smoking area.
From the nonsmokers point of view many would have trouble concentrating on their work if someone in the vicinity were smoking. Furthermore, they would be subject to health risks for decisions which they were not making. The nonsmoker therefore often finds it extremely annoying if placed in a location near to a smoker.
While it may initially appear that these conflicts cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both this problem is in fact solved with the subject invention.
Prior attempts to satisfy both the nonsmoker or smoker have resulted in designating smoking and nonsmoking areas. Other considerations include coffee brakes in order to allow the worker to partake of his habit. These of course are less desirable for the employer who looses valuable work time not only during the brake but for the time just prior and after the brake while the individual is not concentrating on their work.
While the work area is a clear example of this problem one need not look far to recognize other significant examples. Eating establishments are another good example. While many eating establishments have designated smoking areas, those who are truly sensitive to smoke will generally say that these areas are not sufficiently removed in order to really protect them from the smoke. Furthermore, the nonsmoker will say that he or she cannot enjoy their meal when in the presence of smoke and conversely the smoke will explain how his meal is not complete unless he is also able to have a cigarette.
Other areas such as beauty salons, waiting rooms of any type, etc. are all places for possible conflict and dissatisfaction both on the part of the smoker and nonsmoker. It was with these ideas in mind that the subject invention was developed in order to respect the rights, needs and wants of all individuals involved.
These needs have not been previously met since other smoking devices such as water pipes and the like may retain the smoke from the burning cigarette but fail to consider the exhaled smoke by the user. This is a common shortcoming of the prior art and renders all of these approaches useless when trying to maintain a smoke free atmosphere.